Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.

Review the upthread discussion of the impossibility of sharding the gas.

Why do I have to repeat myself? You claim to be a programmer of 10 years. You can't remember what you read 2 pages ago in the thread

The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.

I will repeat again for the 10th time in this thread. Every validator must be able to validate the entire history of the lineage of transactions for the shard that validator is responsible for. Otherwise that validator can't be sure it is not going to lose its funds (i.e. electricity for PoW or deposit for the proposed consensus-by-betting) because it approved an invalid transaction due to some lie in the history as trusted but not validated. Combine this with the impossibility of sharding the gas as explained already to you. The white paper you referred to is for a crypto currency, thus there is no gas (from other shard) that must be atomic with the execution of the sharded script (as was explained to you upthread!).

need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved.

False. Make the Halting Problem decideable.

Please don't insult my superior intelligence and experience again with your (ostensibly not even freshman level) learning curve (and the inability to remember the famous Halting problem from freshman CompSci at the university).

When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?

The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or they will hide the fact that they will allow the validation to centralize (as I allege Iota is doing). So the hype could go on for some time before it finally enters a collapse similar to the current Bitcoin scalepocalpyse.

Ultimately someone will create something that works properly and beat them and Bitcoin. I know who that person might be. He is very close to me. He is sick and trying to get healthy for the big coding push.

Note the BS often beats substance, or the BShitters can simply copy the substance and claim it as their own. So it isn't really clear how all this is going to play out.

When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?

The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or they will hide the fact that they will allow the validation to centralize (as I allege Iota is doing).

"They will". "They won't"

You seem pretty sure of things for someone who is clearly 2 apples short of a picnic

Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.

The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.

need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.

I've spent most of my life in software since 1996, right after the university I was in the team that created first DSL modem in the world, later I worked for a company that was working on powerline modem. Many big companies with lots of money spent fortunes trying to get it going, at the time everybody thought that its simply not possible. After all a company called Intellon actually made it work with pretty simple idea that was the winning one. Today most of the problems have been solved in software and Ethereum will get it right sooner or later, if they won't may be TPDB_need_war will tell them how to do it Bottom line it will be working, just a matter of time. All they have to do is to slightly modify the original idea that everything has to run on a blockchain. There is absolutely no reason to stick to blockchain when there is no need to. Blockchain is not the only answer to "decentralized freedom" it will have to evolve into some hybrid monster that will do the job.

When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?

The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or they will hide the fact that they will allow the validation to centralize (as I allege Iota is doing).

"They will". "They won't"

You seem pretty sure of things for someone who is clearly 2 apples short of a picnic

It seems the elite Republicans want Trump to exit the Republican Party and become Independent for they would rather hand it all to Hillary to ensure their rank and career political status. The fear Trump will be an outsider who will trim the sails of government and reduce wasteful spending that feeds their friends and family, is just too much for them to accept.

Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?

I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?

or

Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.

Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others.

Ethereum is vaporware.

The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life.

In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue.

You think that's feasable?

Probably but it will highly limit what they can allow to be scripted.

I already made the superior proposal which is to investigate using zk-snarks to hide the data of scripts from miners (or validators). The validation could be done in zero knowledge.

In either case, they are not close to solving that issue, which is separate from the insoluble scaling issue. There is only one way to solve the scaling issue DECENTRALIZED and I know what it is. No one else in the universe apparently knows how to do it. Their only options will be to either lie about the Prisoner's Dilemma and cross their fingers or centralize the validation (or copy me).

Any 20-something who hasn't grown up and learned any real skills, can predict he will waste another day masturbating on his moma's sofabed again the next day and anonymously trolling accomplished elders from his mobile device.

Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?

I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?

or

Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.

Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others.

Ethereum is vaporware.

The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life.

In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue.

You think that's feasable?

Probably but it will highly limit what they can allow to be scripted.

I already made the superior proposal which is to investigate using zk-snarks to hide the data of scripts from miners (or validators). The validation could be done in zero knowledge.

In either case, they are not close to solving that issue, which is separate from the insoluble scaling issue. There is only one way to solve the scaling issue DECENTRALIZED and I know what it is. No one else in the universe apparently knows how to do it. Their only options will be to either lie about the Prisoner's Dilemma and cross their fingers or centralize the validation.

So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

Carpe diem - cut the down side - be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybwThe simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.

Any 20-something who hasn't grown up and learned any real skills, can predict his will waste another day masturbating on his moma's sofabed again the next day and anonymously trolling accomplished elders from his mobile device.

So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe. You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe. You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler.